Only about 4.5% of the 10,000 or so domestic screens that will show New Line and MGM’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journeyon December 14 will present it the way director Peter Jackson wants — at 48 frames per second instead of the conventional 24 frames. But Warner Bros Domestic Distribution President Dan Fellman tells me that this reflects a cautious rollout strategy, not a failure to win support from exhibition execs. Even now, “equipment is being tested” and some glitches have been corrected, he says. “So we did the right thing” by limiting the rollout to anywhere from 400 to 450 screens covering most major cities. “This is a technology that is going to change the way people see movies…You have to do it right.”

Warner Bros seemed to have bigger ambitions for the visually vivid 3D projection technology — which the studio’s calling “HFR” (for High Frame Rate) — at the exhibition industry’s CinemaCon trade confab in April. That effort hit a huge PR speed bump when several viewers said that they were unmoved by a 10-minute excerpt of the film in 48 fps. Carmike Cinemas’ Terrel Mayton said at the time that HFR “has to be a kick-the-picture-out (advancement) or it just becomes one of a long line of technology advances that’s here for a while and then move into oblivion.” Theater owners have to pay about $5,000 for a projector to handle HFR — first-generation digital ones can’t be upgraded. More recent projectors only require a software upgrade which can run $1,500. It can cost as much as $20,000 to make the change at an IMAX venue. Theaters also have to shell out more to store HFR prints than they do for conventional 24 fps digital films.

But Warner Bros knew at the CinemaCon demo that HFR probably wouldn’t sweep the industry because “we had no idea how fast or slow the equipment would be developed,” Fellman says. “We never expected to go 100%. At the time not one manufacturer was ready to do this. It was all in development.” He adds that the images that struck some viewers at the time as being too cold, similar to videotape, look a lot different now. Jackson “hadn’t had time to do color correction” or add graininess and filtering, Fellman says. “The reels I’ve seen knocked my socks off.” AMC Theaters says it will have 98 venues offering The Hobbit in HFR-3D and Regal Entertainment has 91. Tickets for the HFR screenings likely will cost no more than the theaters already charge for conventional 3D films.

Is that to say that the movies of previous generations were not ‘truly immersive experiences’? Sounds like you believe the hype: that more frames per second will get people off there iPads and back into the cinema. It couldn’t be that they’re waiting for better movies, could it?

Jack Frost • on Nov 15, 2012 11:41 am

Adding grain is very common place with images as clean as the digital capture they’re doing these days. We’re used to some amount of grain, so the lack of it is a psychological effect – but also, adding it can hide imperfections in the VFX as well as make what little motion blur there is more pleasing to the eye, as the grain makes it feel more like particles rather than smear, and smear is the worst thing in the world for a moving image (it’s the reason the 60fps interpolated movies at your local Best Buy doesn’t look “right”, and not the frame rate itself).

Yup • on Nov 15, 2012 11:41 am

Translation: “We’re terrified of scaring people away because 48fps looks like horse shit, so this is a desperate back pedal to protect our investment”.

Jack Frost • on Nov 15, 2012 11:41 am

I’m always amused by the armchair quarterbacks who have never seen 3D 48fps footage, yet feel qualified to say it looks like shit.

If you understood shutter angles and how it affects motion blur, you wouldn’t be so quick to judge.
I’ve seen 48fps 3D and I’ve seen 60fps 3D. I know that I prefer the higher frame rates to 24fps, but only in 3D. In 2D, there’s something psychological that happens, where movies become almost dream-like when playing at 24fps. 3D is a completely different beast.

I have a strong preference for seeing all films the way the director intended. For example, if they were shot using IMAX cameras, I see it at the film IMAX (not the digital IMAX). This is no exception. 48fps is my choice because that’s what the director intended. It’s really as simple as that.
When you direct your own film, you can pick whatever frame rate you want. If someone tells you it looks like shit, you can dismiss their opinion just as easily as I’m dismissing yours.

Man, I loved the Lord of the RIngs trilogy – huge fan. But all this technology junk has put me right off the whole thing. Three movies, 3D, 48fps, and the director telling us that whether we like it or not, all this is coming at us. I don’t even care if I see it at all anymore. The whole thing looks like a sanitized version of sets, costumes, staging and camerawork. The whole thing has become a bore – which is a pity, because if he’d just delivered a great film, without all the hype, I’d have been there all the way.

Jack Frost • on Nov 15, 2012 11:41 am

Did you even read the article or are you just trolling?
It’s clearly not being thrown at your whether or not you like it, when it’s in less than 5% of screens, now is it? You still have your 24fps presentation on 95% of all screens, so isn’t is possible you’re just being a little hyperbolic?

Nobody gives a shit whether or not you see it. Certainly not I. Stay home if you want to. Nobody’s forcing you to do anything.

Now, stop whining.

JohnDoe • on Nov 15, 2012 11:41 am

48fps looks great…if you embrace the new digital technology of filmmaking. What is the point of keeping 3D at 24fps when it looks like shit because it stutters and strobes and gives people headaches?

There should be two choices for people: 2D, and 3D 48fps.

Jason • on Nov 15, 2012 11:41 am

No. 120 FPS, 8K resolution. Want now.

Ana • on Nov 15, 2012 11:41 am

What a joke! Best would be to just make original movies that touchs people… Are we all robots by now?..

Tim • on Nov 15, 2012 11:41 am

I can’t wait to see 48fps Hobbit. HFR allows u to experience 3D in the best way possible. I have seen HFR and it looks great. Audience will notice and I think they will love it. Just give it chance people Peter Jackson knows what he is dong, he’s a director you are not!

R. Bruce Perry • on Nov 15, 2012 11:41 am

you can yap about all the “technical” advances you want. My question is, was, and will continue to be, “does it look BETTER than 35mm FILM?” (Film meaning FILM, not the generic term for “video”).
As the Old Man of the Cinema used to say:
Theater is Life
Film is Art
video is furniture…

Patrick • on Nov 15, 2012 11:41 am

Isn’t HFR digital 3D just another medium? You don’t hear me complaining about oils or water-based paints, or things drawn on an iPad. If you, as an artist, don’t want to use the tool, don’t. If Peter wants to use HFR digital 3D, he has the right to do so.

I have bemoaned the slow death of 35mm film. It is sad, as many artists would still prefer to work with it. It is their preferred tool. On the other hand, it is exciting to see a number of movies being shot on larger format film (65mm, IMAX) at traditional rates. It is also exciting to see how far the digital tool can be pushed.

We’re in a moment in time that I feel is similar to the transition between theater and cinema. The theater didn’t go away, but it hurt for a little bit. All in all, technology pushed forward and now two great storytelling tools co-exist. Why couldn’t this be the same?

Jeremy • on Nov 15, 2012 11:41 am

As a budding cinematographer I’ve been following this development for nearly two years now. When PJ announced he was shooting in 48fps I was stunned. What a huge risk I thought. Audiences are trained to think that 24fps is a movie and nothing else is. He is going out a limb for sure.
I think that not having headaches after watching a 3D movie alone will be worth it, factor in the absence of motion blur and strobing and you will have a “like you’re there” experience.
Cameron has mentioned wanting to shoot the Avatar sequels at 60 fps, pushing it past the magic 55fps limit that an eye can see an individual picture. This is huge stuff!
Another thing to think about is the fact that The Hobbit has been shot at 4K resolution and no movie theater in America has a screen or projector that can display that yet. Meaning in a few years these movies will be re-released to be displayed at the resolution PJ intended. Kinda like watching Jaws or Blade runner now on blu-ray is much closer to what Spielberg or Scott wanted it to be displayed at back in the day. Exciting times!